...and here I thought this firm was one of the untouchables. Yikes!
Buyouts at Davis Polk Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
- AAJD2B

- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Buyouts at Davis Polk
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/nationwi ... avis-polk/
...and here I thought this firm was one of the untouchables. Yikes!

...and here I thought this firm was one of the untouchables. Yikes!
-
RodneyRuxin

- Posts: 456
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:08 pm
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
No firm is untouchable.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432821
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
1) this was weeks ago
2) the buyouts are insanely generous
3) this is not a big deal whatsoever
2) the buyouts are insanely generous
3) this is not a big deal whatsoever
- 84651846190

- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
Get back to me when they do mass layoffs of attorneys. Staff layoffs have been extremely common. DPW probably just delayed them longer than other firms.
- AAJD2B

- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
1. And your point is?Anonymous User wrote:1) this was weeks ago
2) the buyouts are insanely generous
3) this is not a big deal whatsoever
2. As if that makes the stark reality of changes withing BIGLAW any better.
3. Oh, but it is. Proof that the ship is sinking.
First Dewey, then Weil now DPW. Next up Skadden or Cravath? Crazy times.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- AAJD2B

- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
Possibly closer than most thought.Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Get back to me when they do mass layoffs of attorneys.
-
aces

- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:06 pm
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
If this happened to any other leading firm in any other industry, noone would bat an eye. It'd be entirely meaningless if not for the (false) impression of some that any tiny sign of weakness means a firm (and the industry as a whole) is going down in flames.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432821
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
You're a 0L so get out of this forum.AAJD2B wrote:1. And your point is?Anonymous User wrote:1) this was weeks ago
2) the buyouts are insanely generous
3) this is not a big deal whatsoever
2. As if that makes the stark reality of changes withing BIGLAW any better.
3. Oh, but it is. Proof that the ship is sinking.
First Dewey, then Weil now DPW. Next up Skadden or Cravath? Crazy times.
But to add support to the fact that you don't understand nearly as much as your stupid attitude would suggest (and I'm not the above poster):
Weil and DPW are not Dewey. Weil conducted layoffs in particular practice areas and geographic locations (bankruptcy, a practice that is countercyclical and largely why Weil fared better than its peers during the worst of the downturn, and commercial lit, which was tied to the now closed Houston office where it was struggling to compete). That firm is not going anywhere and their NY office is still among the very best. DPW, like many others, conducted staff layoffs. Now, if you had ever worked in a law firm or even talked to lawyers, you would realize that there is simply less of a need for support staff than in the past. Yes, it sucks for the people who were laid off, but there doesn't need to be a secretary for every lawyer and IT/mail can be trimmed.
TLDR; don't share your uneducated, 0L opinion in this forum.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432821
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
Also let's be clear that these were generous voluntary buyouts - no one was laid off.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432821
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
never understand why people want to defend a law firm, law firms would not hesitate to fire any one of you to increase PPP.
-
potted plant

- Posts: 98
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:01 pm
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
Who is doing this? People are defending the viability of the legal profession and the financial stability of Davis Polk. Nobody's arguing that firms won't fire their employees to increase profits. That's literally the whole point of this discussion. We all realize that firms will only employ us so long as it remains profitable to do so. That's why we care about the strength of the legal market.Anonymous User wrote:never understand why people want to defend a law firm, law firms would not hesitate to fire any one of you to increase PPP.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432821
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Buyouts at Davis Polk
it's not defending a law firm, it's defending against the ridiculous notion that generous buyout offers (which are not layoffs) for often redundant support staff is a sign that the ship is sinking.Anonymous User wrote:never understand why people want to defend a law firm, law firms would not hesitate to fire any one of you to increase PPP.
nobody said to worship at the alter of biglaw, but to suggest this means anything of import? please.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login